The Law Society considers the idea of an independent defence union after concerns over SDT costs and reputational risks
The Law Society is set to research the feasibility of establishing an independent defence union to support solicitors facing disciplinary proceedings before the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The initiative follows concerns over the financial strain, reputational damage, and well-being impacts that SDT proceedings can have on solicitors.
The idea was first proposed by Paul Sharma, the Law Society’s Council member for Central London, who passed away before the research could be initiated. The special committee of inquiry, set up by the governing council in May 2024, examined the possibility of offering additional support to solicitors subjected to SDT proceedings. However, funding representation from the Society’s funds has been ruled out as a viable option due to legal restrictions. Under the 2007 Legal Services Act, using member funds to finance defences in SRA proceedings is not permissible. The Society also expressed concerns that directly funding such defences would undermine public confidence in the profession and jeopardise its reputation for maintaining high standards.
Embed from Getty Images
SDT proceedings are costly for solicitors, both financially and reputationally, with respondents typically shouldering their own defence costs, which are rarely recoverable from the SRA. Defence costs for SDT cases, as well as SRA prosecution fees, fines, and higher professional indemnity insurance premiums, are often not covered by insurance. In fact, insurance for SDT defence costs is excluded from the minimum terms of professional indemnity insurance (PII).
The committee’s final report, approved by the Law Society Council, highlights that a defence union funded by member premiums had been previously explored but deemed unfeasible. The main hurdles included the potential for the Society to assume financial liability and the need for legislative changes to facilitate such a scheme. The committee has now agreed to research whether solicitors would be willing to contribute voluntarily to such a union, should it be established independently.
The Law Society also explored the possibility of reinstating compulsory SDT defence cost cover in the PII minimum terms and conditions. This provision, removed in 2010, was found to be unfeasible, as it would require changes to the PII MTCs, which are determined by the SRA, not the Society. Insurers would likely demand compensatory changes that could reduce overall protection, further complicating the proposal.
Other potential solutions, including the creation of a dedicated helpline for solicitors under investigation, were found to be problematic. The Law Society cannot offer legal or regulatory advice through its Practice Advice Service, which provides signposting for members. Any new support channel would need careful consideration regarding liability, scope, and costs.
While the proposal for an independent defence union remains in the research stage, it marks a significant step towards addressing the challenges faced by solicitors subjected to SDT proceedings and is an area the Law Society is committed to exploring further.